PL to impose points sanctions for overspending clubs

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11678/8478278?

Premier League clubs will face a points deduction if they breach new spending controls, chief executive Richard Scudamore has confirmed.

The 20 club chairmen agreed to two significant controls on Thursday - to limit players' wage bills from next season and to longer-term measures that will restrict the amount of losses clubs can make to £105million over three years.

Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52m will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4m per season for the next three years, but the cap does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.

Scudamore said: "As all things in our rulebook you will subject to a disciplinary commission.

"The clubs understand that if people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction.

"Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."

The vote for financial regulations could hardly have been closer, with only 13 of the 20 clubs voting in favour, with six against and Reading abstaining.

It meant that the 'yes' vote only narrowly achieved the necessary two-thirds majority of the 19 votes cast.

Clubs sources say Fulham, West Brom, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea and Southampton all voted against.

Scudamore said there would be an "absolute prohibition" on clubs reporting losses of more than £105m over the next three years with the first sanctions possible in 2016.

Of the 20 clubs in the top flight, only Manchester City, Chelsea and Liverpool have reported losses of more than £105m over the last three years, according to the most up-to-date published accounts.

The regulations have come about against the backdrop of UEFA's Financial Fair Play (FFP) initiative.

Under UEFA's new rules clubs are being forced to minimise losses or risk the possibility of exclusion from European competition from 2014/15.

Scudamore admitted that their own FFP measures would mean it will take longer for benefactor owners to achieve success, but that it would still be possible.

He said: "The balance we have tried to strike is that a new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions in a very short period of time.

"While it has worked for a couple of clubs in the last 10 years, and I am not critical of that, if that's going to be done in the future it's going to have to be over a slightly longer term without the huge losses being made.

"I think at £105m you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, you can't do it in a season."

Chelsea won the Premier League two years after Roman Abramovich's takeover, and Manchester City's title success came three years after Sheikh Mansour's takeover.

Any club making any loss of over £5m a year will have guarantee those losses against the owner's assets.

"In some ways that's the most significant part; this is a three-year rolling system of secure funding - it's one year at the moment," added Scudamore.

The ceiling when the wage increase restrictions kick in will be £52m next season, £56m the following year and £60m in 2015-16. Only seven of the current top-flight clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.

 

I wonder which clubs didn't back the proposal... Hmmmmmm

 

There will be plenty of ways to fiddle things for some clubs...

 

No doubt. Not many clubs are as black and white as we are

 

No doubt some will find a loophole, but there is pressure from the government that the FA need to get their house in order or the government will get involved, concerns are for the amount of money being paid to the PL and not enough is filtering down to the lower leagues.

 

Am I the only one gobsmacked at the clubs who voted against?

Man City I can understand. Even the likes of Man Utd, Chelsea etc

but why on earth would the likes of Southampton, Swansea and West Brom think it would be a bad idea. Would love to know what their logic for voting against the capping. Could only think it was a vote saying the caps were too high!!

 

As far as I'm aware Southampton pay their fringe players around £20-30k so im guessing their wage budget won't be far off what we pay. Remembering their stadium only holds 32,000.

Also the clubs that have voted against it may have projections that aren't that far off this £105m loss, especially the likes of Villa.

 

Their votes might've been bought by say, Man City...